The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPlanning Comm Reports/1993/04/21 (9) City Planning Commission Agenda Item for the Meeting of April 21, 1993 Pagel 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ 93-F, Application for prezoning 1.05 acres at 4045 Palm Drive to the Citv' s Residential Estate (RE) zone- Chia Chen and Chuang Chu (owners). A. BACKGROUND 1. This item is a request for prezoning to the City's Residential Estate (RE) zone of a 1. 05 acre vacant parcel located near the southerly terminus of Palm Drive, north and east of Greenwood Place, and south and west of Acacia Avenue, in the unincorporated area of Bonita. The site is proposed for annexation to the City, and is presently zoned County Rural Residential (RR-l) (please see Exhibit A). 2. The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study (IS-93-15), and based on the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration, Addendum and comments thereon, has concluded that there would be no significant environmental impacts created by this proposed prezoning, and recommends adoption of the Negative Declaration and Addendum on IS-93-15. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve the attached Planning Commission Resolution which: a. Finds, based on the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum prepared under IS-93-15, that the project will not a have a significant environmental impact and adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum prepared under IS- 93-15. b. Recommends that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum prepared under IS-93-l5 c. Recommends that the City Council introduce for first reading the attached draft ordinance prezoning 1.05 acres located at 4045 Palm Drive to the Residential Estate (RE) zone, and making necessary findings. C. DISCUSSION The subject 1.05 acre property is one of the last remaining in- fill lots in an area developed with single family detached custom homes. The land uses to the north and west of the property are single family dwellings, with open space to the south and east and, single family dwellings ~ -I City Planning Commission Agenda Item for the Meeting of April 21, 1993 Page2 beyond (see Exhibit A). The topography of the area is hilly, and the site itself is sloping. The applicant desires to build a single family dwelling on the site, and could theoretically do so under the existing County zoning. However, the site's topography is not conducive to a septic system thereby necessitating connection to the City sewer. A City sewer exists in Palm Drive and is already serving some of the homes in the immediate vicinity, and can be extended to service this property. The City's sewer policy (570-02) provides for such extensions and requires annexation where such is feasible, as in this instance. The owners have agreed to the terms of this Policy and are processing an annexation request with LAFCO. LAFCO policy requires the City to prezone the subject property prior to annexation. It should be noted that the owners are concurrently processing building plans with the City, and the Zoning Administrator has recently granted a Conditional Use Permit (PCC-93-30) for a minor increase in allowable building height due to the site's slope. The proposed "RE" prezoning is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan designation of Low Density Residential (0-3 du/ac), and the surrounding zoning and land use context. Public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice also support the prezoning to the Residential Estate (RE) zone. (F: \home\planning\pcz93fpc. rpt) ~.~ PCZ-93-30 EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USE Request for prezoning of 1.05 acres to the City's "Residential Estate (RE) zone for a proposed residence located at 4045 Palm Drive CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPT.-ADVANCE DIV. 4/5/93 C.RUIZ I o FEET t . EXHIBIT "A" ;:;3 I 400' " '\/ // /,./ // ~./ -/ '/ / / / / /. / / / / / 'oJ, I I / / I / I / , / "-I .... I / I ..... .... .... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... . -~ NORTH C.. No .~Z-t3-F 1.05 1" 200' I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS ZONING MAP WAS APPROVED AS A PART OF OROINANCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON ACl"eege: Scale: ~e: 4/13/83 City Clrk illite Dr..", Iy: Checked By: C.J.F. ZONING MAP - d-- t EXHIBIT "B" mitigated negative declaration PROJECT NAME: Chia Chen and Chuang Chu Residence PROJECT LOCATION: 4045 Palm Drive ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 593-111-05 PROJECT APPLICANT: Chia Chen Chu CASE NO: IS-93-15 DATE: January 4, 1993 A. Proiect Setting The site is a 1.05 acre sloping, north-facing hillside of nearly 2 to I slope. The elevation change from one end of the lot to the other is approximately 100 feet. The site is vacant and covered with native brush and grasses, although plants associated with residential landscaping, such as ice plant, are encroaching onto the site (see Section E, Biology. for more detailed description of site vegetation). An abandoned car is located on the northwest corner of the site. To the south, single-family homes line the top of the slope. East of the site is a vacant, shrub-covered slope. One single-family dwelling is to the west, and to the north a vacant, flat drainage plain occurs. A natural, vegetated open space easement exists to the east. An easement designed for installation of a water main runs across the open space area above and to the southwest of the site. The easement has been severely encroached upon by non-native plants and contains no sensitive resources. B. Proiect Description The proposed project involves the construction of a 6,295 square foot single family home. The two-story house will have eight bedrooms and 5 parking spaces. Approximately 1,064 square feet will be graded, with 373 cubic yards excavated, and 557 cubic yards of fill placed on site. Associated discretionary approvals required include a prezoning to the City's Residential Estate (RE) zone, and annexation to Chula Vista. In addition to construction of the residence, a water main will be installed to provide water service to the proposed project. This line will likely be located in a private easement owned by the applicant. The easement runs through an open space area above the site to the southwest. If in consultation with the Sweetwater Authority, the existing water main in Palm Drive is extended instead, it is not anticipated to have any adverse .:1.5 ~ {ft.. -.- r......,._ __~ ,~~~ CfTYOf . CHUlA VISTA city of chula vllta planning department environmental review ..ctlon environmental impacts, as Palm Drive is currently developed and does not contain any natural resources. C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans The site is currently in the County of San Diego, zoned Rural Residential (RR-I), which permits the construction of one single-family dwelling per acre, such as the current project proposes. The project involves annexation to the City of Chula Vista and a prezone to the City's Residential Estate (RE) zone. The RE zone is analogous to the County's RR-l zone, allowing essentially the same single-family uses. Thus, the prezoning does not substantially change the allowed use or increase the permitted density of the parcel. The proposed residential unit is consistent with the RE zone. The General Plan designation of the site is Low Density Residential (0-3 dulac). The project is also consistent with this designation. D. Compliance with the Threshold/Standards Policv I. FirelEMS The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond to calls within 7 minutes or less in 85% of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75% of the cases. The City of Chula Vista has indicated that this threshold standard will be met, since the nearest fire station is 2 miles away and would be associated with a 6 minute response time. The proposed project would comply with this Threshold Policy. The project site is currently served by the Bonita Sunnyside Fire Protection District (BSFPD). Upon annexation, the project site would be detached from BSFPD, and fire protection services would be provided by the City of Chula Vista. However, under the City's automatic aid agreement, the BSFPD, as the closest fire station to the site, would likely service the proposed project. Due to the difficulty in emergency vehicles accessing the site and the lack of fire hydrants, the Chula Vista Fire Department requires that the project be equipped with a fire sprinkler system. Other requirements may be forthcoming when more detailed site and building plans are submitted to the Fire Department. 2. Police The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that police units must respond to 84% of Priority I calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority I calls of 4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62.10% of Priority 2 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes or less. The proposed project 2 ~.(, will comply with this Threshold Policy. The proj ect site is currently in the County of San Diego, and therefore falls under the jurisdiction of the County Sheriff. Upon annexation, service will be provide by the City of Chula Vista. The Police Department has indicated that the proposed project will meet the Threshold Policy for the City of Chula Vista. 3. Traffic The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that all intersections must operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D" may occur during the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections. Intersections west of 1-805 are not to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS. No intersection may reach LOS "E" or "F" during the average weekday peak hour. Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this policy. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Policy. The proposed project would generate an estimated I 0 one-way auto trips per day. The current Average Daily Traffic (ADT) on Palm Drive is not calculated, but the Level of Service (LOS) is estimated at "C" or higher. The LOS would not change as a result of the project. The ADT for Bonita Road is 26,670 currently; after project completion, the ADT would be 26,680, while the LOS would remain at "S" or better. 4. Parks/Recreation The Threshold/Standards Policy for Parks and Recreation is 3 acresll ,000 population. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Policy with payment of Park Acquisition and Development (PAD) fees. 5. Drainage The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that storm water flows and volumes not exceed City Engineer Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plane s) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Policy. Existing on-site drainage consists of a brow ditch along the southern property line and surface flow to the adjacent vacant lot to the north. Improvements to drainage facilities will be required in conjunction with the grading permit process to properly redirect flow around the structure. No improvements to off- site drainage facilities are required. 3 .;<..7 6. Sewer The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that sewage flows and volumes shall not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Policy. The proposed project would generate I Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU, approximately 265 gallons) of liquid waste per day. The property is served by an 8-inch sewer line plugged at adjacent property. This line is adequate to serve the project. 7. Water The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Policy, with compliance to the requirements of the Sweetwater Authority. Because Southern California is in its 6th consecutive critically dry year, the County Water Authority is recommending a voluntary 10% reduction in water consumption for new development through the use of low flow fixtures and drought-tolerant landscaping. Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever water conservation or fee off-set program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance. Although the Sweetwater Authority has indicated that currently there is not a water main fronting the property, the proposed project includes installation of a water line in a previously obtained easement next to the site, or extending the existing main in Palm Drive. See Section E of this document for a more detailed description of water impacts. E. Identification of Environmental Effects An initial study conducted by the City of Chula Vista determined that the proposed project could have one or more significant environmental effects. Subsequent revisions in the project design have implemented specific mitigation measures to reduce these effects to a level of less than significant. The project, as revised, now avoids or mitigates the potentially significant environmental effects previously identified, and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been 4 ~, 8 prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Specific mitigation measures have also been set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program which is attached as Addendum "A". The following impacts have been determined to be potentially significant and are required to be mitigated to a level of less than significant. A discussion of less than significant impacts uom the proposed proiect follows. Significant. But Mitigable Impacts 1. Water A vailabilitv Impacts The proposed residence is within the Sweetwater Authority's service area. At this time there is no water main uonting the proposed project. A letter uom Richard Reynolds of the Sweetwater Authority to the City (October 27, 1992) indicates that on June 14, 1989 the Sweetwater Authority Board of Directors approved a remote service to the subject parcel. This remote service was subject to the owner obtaining a private utility easement. Because this easement was not obtained until 1992, the remote service was never installed. Due to the time period which has elapsed since then, the Authority will have to re-evaluate water service to the site. Should it be determined that a remote service is no longer feasible, based upon updated fire flow requirements, a water main extension will be required in Palm Drive (see Exhibit A). As detailed building plans are developed, the applicant must submit a letter to the Authority from the appropriate fire agency outlining fire flow requirements. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall coordinate with City Engineering and Building Departments, and the Sweetwater Authority to determine whether the water line will be installed across the private easement as originally proposed, or the existing water main in Palm Drive extended. If the applicant provides the required fire flow information and enters into an agreement for water facility improvements with the Authority, water service may be obtained at a pressure ranging from a maximum of 75 p.s.i. to a minimum of 50 p.s.i. at the meter. Adherence to all requirements of the Sweetwater Authority and City Departments regarding water availability is necessary to mitigate impacts to water service to a level of less than significant. The addition of one single family home will cause an incremental impact on water usage in Chula Vista. However, this impact would be less than significant, and could be mitigated through compliance with whatever conservation or fee off-set program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance. In addition, the use of low-flow fixtures and planting drought -tolerant site landscaping could also help offset the incremental water demand. 5 ';;'7 2. Geologv and Soils/Grading Impacts The site consists of a nearly 2 to I sloping, north-facing hillside. Elevation changes between the lower and higher lot boundaries is approximately 100 feet. The slope extends upward to the south roughly 50 feet to an existing row of residential units. A vacant slope is to the east, and a northerly trending stream cut occurs on the eastern portion of the lot. A g'!nite brow ditch occurs just east of the east property line. A soils report performed by Soils Testers (June 9, 1992) found a loose colluvial mixture of sand and clayey sands. The report outlines two alternative procedures for development on the site, a cut-fill pad, or drilled caissons. The report recommends the caisson supported primary structure, with minimum cut/fill grading operation, over the cut/fill building pad alternative. However, in conjunction with the building permit process, the soils report must be updated to reflect the proposed two-story structure. Adherence to all recommendations set forth in the updated report, and to all requirements of the City Engineering Department are required to ensure that soils impacts are not significant. Less Than Significant Impacts I. Schools Impacts The proposed residential development falls within the jurisdiction of the Sweetwater Union High School District (Bonita Vista High and Junior High School attendance areas), and the Chula Vista Elementary School District (Allen School attendance area). The Elementary School District has indicated that the Allen School is presently operating over capacity. Section 65995 of the California Government Code authorizes school districts to collect fees from developers of both residential and non-residential projects. A fee of $1.65 per square foot of assessable building area is required to assist in financing facilities needed to serve students generated by new residential construction. The fees are split between the two school districts with The Chula Vista Elementary School District receiving $0.73 per square foot and the Sweetwater Union High School District receiving $0.92 per square foot. This fee is assessed for new construction and additions/remodels of over 500 square feet. One single-family home can be expected to generate an average of ,3 elementary students, .19 middle-school students, and .1 high school students. Since the same school districts will serve the project whether or not the site is annexed to the City of Chula Vista, and the proposed prezoning will not result in any 6 ~, Id increase in allowable density, impacts to schools are found to be less than significant. Payment of school fees as outlined above will be required. 2. Noise Impacts Construction of the residences could be associated with noise impacts during the construction phase of the project. Short-term noise impact~ could result from the use of earth moving equipment which can produce up to 70/dB(A) and above for backhoes and concrete pavers. However, these impacts would be temporary and would terminate with construction of the project. Additionally, construction hours would be limited to daytime hours in accordance with the City's Noise Ordinance Standards. No long-term noise impacts are anticipated. Therefore, noise impacts are found to be less than significant. 3. Land Use Impacts The proposed project is currently in the County of San Diego, zoned Rural Residential (RR-I). Annexation to the City of Chula Vista and a prezoning to the City's Residential Estate (RE) zone is required. Surrounding land uses include single-family homes to the west and south (beyond the open space easement), a vacant partial lot to the north, and dedicated open space to the east. Construction of a large, single-family would be consistent with the surrounding residential units. The proposed residential unit is one of the last vacant lots in a neighborhood approved and developed many years ago, and represents in-fill development in an area already developed with similar housing stock. Therefore, land use impacts are found to be less than significant. 4. Biologv ImDacts The site is in a natural state, covered with native grasses and shrubs, and is partially disturbed in limited areas along the northwest portion of the site. Diegan Coastal Sage scrub is present on the site, including Toyon and Lemonade Berry, and would be removed with development of the proposed project. EIR 88-02 analyzed the impact of incremental losses of sage scrub, and concluded that on a project-by-project basis, the loss of less than 5 acres of Coastal Sage Scrub habitat should not be considered significant. Thus, the 1.05 acre proposed development will not significantly impact biological resources. The two pepper trees on the site will remain. The open space easement associated with the project has been invaded with non- native vegetation and contains no significant biological resources. Furthermore, given the surrounding residential development and the presence of domestic cats and dogs in the area, the project area is not expected to support 7 ';',JI a large or diverse reptile, amphibian, or mammal fauna population. Thus, biological impacts are found to be less than significant. 5. V isual Impacts The site is currently in a natural state, and consists of a sloping, north-facing hillside. The proposed project would construct a 6,295 square foot, PhI-stOry house on the site. However, the surrounding dwellings are also built into slopes, and their viewsheds are toward the north and/or east overlooking the nearby canyon. Their viewsheds would not be impacted by the proposed project. In addition, the project abuts a open space easement which contains a greater amount and variety of vegetation than exists on the site itself, and this area is expected to remain in its natural state. Therefore, aesthetic impacts are found to be less than significant. F. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects Specific project mitigation measures have been required to reduce potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the initial study for this project to a level of less than significant. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project design and have been made conditions of project approval, as well as requirements of the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program (Addendum "A"). I. Water Service Mitigation The applicant must coordinate with the Sweetwater Authority and the City of Chula Vista Engineering Division on the construction or alteration of water facilities. Adherence to all requirements of these agencies is necessary to ensure adequate water delivery systems will be provided to the proposed single-family home. If the applicant complies with the Sweetwater Authority, in cooperation with the City of Chula Vista in the provision of adequate water facilities to the site, water service impacts could be reduced to a level below significance. 2. Geology/Soils Mitigation As a condition of project approval, before building permits are issued, a new soils report which assesses the impact of construction of a two-story residence must be prepared. All recommendations contained in this new geotechnical study must be followed, along with any modifications or additions required by the City of Chula Vista Engineering Division. Once the soils report is accepted 8 ~,JOl by the Engineering Division, significant and unrnitigable geological/soils impacts could be reduced to a level below significance. G. Findings of Insignificant Impact Based on the following findings, it is determined that the project described above will not have a significant environmental impact and no environmental impact report needs to be prepared. 1. The project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. The proposed project does not have the potential to significantly impact the quality of the natural environment. The loss of Diegan sage scrub habitat is not considered significant, due to its small size. The relatively urban nature of the site and the surrounding residential development restricts its potential to support wildlife, and the site has been designated as an area with low potential for cultural resources. 2, The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. The project will not achieve short-term environmental goals at the expense of long-term goals. The project would achieve long-term goals by developing a parcel of land in accordance with the surrounding land uses, and annexation and rezoning of the site to ensure conformance with the City's General Plan and zomng. 3. The project has possible effects which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. As used in the subsection, "cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. Incremental demand on natural resources, including water, would contribute cumulatively to the regional demand on these resources. However, adherence to the Sweetwater Authority and Chula Vista Engineering Division requirements, as well as the specific mitigation measures contained herein, could reduce these effects to less than significant. The project is one of the last remaining sites to 9 ~ ,13 be developed in a previously approved subdivision, and therefore represents infill development, and thus will not have a growth-inducing impact. 4. The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The proposed single-family residence does not have the potential to adversely impact human health. Noise impacts were deemed to be temporary, and thus less than significant. No other potential impacts to humans or human health were identified. H, Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Ed Batchelder, Planning Diana Lilly, Planning Roger Daoust, Engineering John Lippitt, Engineering Cliff Swanson, Engineering Hal Rosenberg, Engineering Bob Sennett, Planning Ken Larsen, Building and Housing Carol Gove, Fire Marshal Captain Keith Hawkins, Police Dept. Martin Schmidt, Parks and Recreation Sweetwater Authority: Richard A. Reynolds Chula Vista City School District: Kate Shurson Sweetwater Union High School District: Torn Silva Applicant's Agent: Albert T. Salyi 2. Documents EIR-88-2, Chula Vista General Plan Update EIR. P&D Technologies, Inc., May 31, 1989 General Plan, City of Chula Vista Soil Tester, Limited Soil Investigation, Proposed Residential Building Site 4045 Palm Drive, June 9, 1992 Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code 10 ~,I ~ 3. Initial Studv This environmental determination is based on the attached Initial Study as well as any comments on the Initial Study and the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Further information regarding the environmental review of the project is available from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. ~tuMA f!,~ ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR EN 6 (Rev. 12/90) WPC 0175P 11 a rlS ADDENDUM "A" MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Chia Chen and Chuang Chu Residence IS-93-15 In compliance with AB 3180, this Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) has been prepared to address the monitoring of implementation of those mitigation measures set forth in the Mitigated Negative Declaration pertaining to IS-93-15, the Chia Chen and Chuang Chu Residence project. AB 3180 requires monitoring of potentially significant environmental impacts. The MMP for the Chia Chen and Chuang Chu Residence project ensures adequate implementation of mitigation for the following potentially significant impacts: Water Impacts Geology/Soils The Mitigation Compliance Coordinator (MCC) shall be the City of Chula Vista Environmental Review Coordinator (ERC). The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring to the satisfaction of the ERC that all conditions of the MMP have been met. I. Water The applicant must coordinate with the Sweetwater Authority and the City of Chula Vista Engineering Division on the construction or alteration of water facilities. Adherence to all requirements of these agencies will ensure adequate water delivery systems are available to the proposed single-family home. 2. Geology/Soils As a condition of project approval, before building permits are issued, a new soils report which assesses the impact of construction of a two-story residence must be prepared. All recommendations contained in this new geotechnical study must be followed, along with any modifications or additions required by the City of Chula Vista Engineering Division. 12 ~-/~ . - ... .Exhiblt A --. --. -- ... LOt" B --- - " .... . '" , .\1 -' .~ II H LLS 19 , - ; I. . r . .a . 'Wi $ ..,.. .~ .. -- ~ -C. ~ IS ~ ~~ .. ",..' -.. .; , . I. O' ,~~ ". ...... ... 13 ..... ~ .... . >oK POSSIBLE MAIN EXTENSION AND EASEMENT -ol ,..-1 ~W! VI I -I --J "1 · I . aaooo ~~ Ie ...1::t'- ... ~, ~ I Q/_ ! c-~"" -.......: .<of) "....~ " ...,." ! I' I 10 " '. ;. ;; - . .- . """'. ..0 . J .... . .... ......0 ""-J .'- ..;:; (,:) <t Ir...c. -m:::l . I:J ~ E ~ ~ ~Bu(/)~t'IJ UUCJ-"'C Q)c_~Q~(=j i'5er ",:=U OD E ... .- c: c 0 u .- -- 0 ..- rJ . ~ ~"'r'\t:-"Oo ...... Ir... Q) ::;.. .....CJ('\)c;........:> O'(/)Ir.........rno c.. ro 0 r.; U <!:a:JIJ...;;: \....... . ". . Background 1. Name of Proponent: Chia Chen Chu 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 7835 Mission Montana Place. San Dieoo 286-4099 3. Date of Checklist: Januarv 4. 1992 4. Name of Proposal: Chia Chen & Chuana Chu Residence 5. Initial Study Number: IS-93-15 . APPENDIX I ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM (To Be Completed By Lead Agency) Environmental Impacts 1 . Earth. Will the proposal result in: YES MAYBE tiQ a. Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures? o Jill o b. Disruptions. displacements. compaction or overcovering of the soil? o o II!: c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? o o . d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? HI o o e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils. either on or off the site? o o B f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation. deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay. inlet or lake? o I!!J o g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes. landslides. mud slides. ground failure. or similar hazards? o ~ o Comments: A soils analysis on the site performed by Soils Testers. June 9, 1992 found a loose colluvial mixture of sand and clayey sands. The report outlines two alternative procedures for safe development on the site. However, in conjunction with the building permit process, the soils 14 ::( ~/8 report must be updated to reflect the proposed two-story structure. Adherence to all recommendations set forth in the updated report, and those of the City Engineering Department are required to ensure that soils impacts are less than significant. 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: YES MAYBE !:ill a, Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? 11/ o o b. The creation of objectionable odors? II o o c. Alteration of air movement, moisture. or temperature, or any change in climate. either locally or regionally? o ~ o Comments: Significant deterioration of regional air quality would not result from this project due to the limited scale and scope of the project. Any substantial dust emissions which occur during the construction phase of the project must be mitigated through the use of standard dust control methods such as watering the soil and street sweeping. 3. Water. Will the Proposal result in: YES MAYBE .!iQ a. Changes in currents. or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? o II!J o b. Changes in absorption rates. drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? o ~ o c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? o ~ o d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? o II! o e. Discharge into surface waters, or any alteration of surface water quality. including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? o t!J o f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? Iil o o g. Change in the quantity of ground waters. either through direct 15 ':;~J' additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? o o R h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? !!II o o i. Exposure cf people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? III o o Comments: The applicant must comply with all requirements of the Sweetwater Authority and the City of Chula Vista Engineering Department regarding the need for new water systems. In addition, the increase in water usage from the addition of one single-family home must be mitigated through compliance with the City's requirements for low-flow water fixtures and drought- tolerant landscaping, and through participation in whatever water conservation or fee off-set program the City has in effect at the time of building permit issuance. Conformance to these requirements are required to ensure that impacts to water availability are less than significant. 4. Plant life. Will the proposal result in: YES MAYBE .liQ a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? o o I!!I b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? o o III c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenish- ment of existing species? R o o d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? o B o Comments: The site is in a natural state, covered with native grasses and shrubs. Sage scrub is present on the site, including Toyon and lemonade Berry, members of the Diegan Sage Scrub family, and would be impacted by the proposed project. However, EIR 88-02 analyzed the impact of incremental losses of sage scrub, and concluded that on a project-by-project basis, the loss of less than 5 acres of sage scrub habitat should not be considered significant. Thus. the 1.05 proposed development will not significantly impact biological resources. The two pepper trees on the site will remain. The open space easement associated with the project is disturbed and does not contain substantial biological resources. 5. Animal life. Will the proposal result in: YES MAYBE .liQ a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of 16 ,;? . ~d animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects) ? o II o b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? o II o c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? o o lEi d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? o ~ o Comments: Given the surrounding residential development and the present of domestic cats and dogs in the area, the site is not expect to support a large or diverse reptile, amphibian, or mammal fauna population. 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: YES MAYBE tm a. Increases in existing noise levels? 0 0 iii b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 0 I!!I Comments: Construction of the residences could be associated with significant noise impacts during the construction phase of the project. Noise impacts could result from the use of earth moving equipment which can produce up to 70dB(A) and above for backhoes and concrete pavers. However, these impacts would be temporary and would terminate with construction of the project. Additionally, construction hours would be limited to daytime hours in accordance with the City's Noise Ordinance Standards. Thus, noise impacts are deemed to be less than significant. 7. light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? YES MAYBE tm 002 Comments: The proposed single-family home construction, annexation, and prezone does not have the potential to have a significant light or glare impact, since residential uses are generally not associated with significant increases in light or glare, and the small number of residences (1) being constructed would not result in a substantial increase in sky glow. 8. land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? YES MAYBE NO o JrI o 17 0) .q I Comments: The proposed project is currently in the County of San Diego, zoned Rural Residential, which would allow construction of a single.family home such as the proposed project. Annexation to the City of Chula Vista is a requirement of project approval. The prezone to Residential Estate will ensure the project is consistent with surrounding uses. Thus land use impacts will not be significant. 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: YES MAYBE tm a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? o o I!!I Comments: The proposed prezone/rezone and annexation does not in itself have the potential to impact natural resources. An incremental demand on fossil fuels would result from the addition of one new residence, however, this increase would be less than significant due to the small size of the project. 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: YES MAYBE tm a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation I in the event of an accident or upset conditions? o o ~ b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? o o II Comments: The proposed project would not create a significant risk of an explosion or the release of any toxic substances as hazardous materials are not generally associated with residential development. Construction and grading activities would not involve the use of explosives, other than fuel used for construction equipment. The grading contractor must abide by all applicable health and safety requirements for the safe use of such fuel and equipment. 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? YES MAYBE tm o I!!I o Comments: The proposed project is one of the last houses to be constructed in a previously approved subdivision. Although water service may need to be extended to the site, the project is largely surrounded by residential development and is considered infill, and thus is not expected to be growth-inducing. The slight, incremental increase of one single-family dwelling is not expected to have any substantial impact on population. 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand YES MAYBE tm 18 ~.C\~ for additional housing? o III o Comments: The construction and annexation of one single-family home will not have a significant impact on housing stock or demand. The project lot is in a neighborhood previously approved and developed many years ago, and can be considered infill. 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: YES MAYBE tm a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? 0 0 III b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? 0 0 III c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? 0 0 III d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? 0 0 III e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? 0 0 III f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 0 0 III g. A "large project" under the Congestion Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400 or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle trips). 0 0 ~ Comments: The proposed project would generate an estimated 10 one-way auto trips per day, thus impacting Average Daily Traffic (ADT) by only 10 trips. The level of Service (lOS) for Palm Drive ("C" or higher) and Bonita Road ("B" or higher) would not change as a result of the project. 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: YES MAYBE tm a. Fire protection? 0 !!II 0 b. Police protection? 0 0 II!!I c. Schools? 0 I!!I 0 19 ~ . a.3 d. Parks or other recreational facilities? 0 0 III e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? 0 0 ill f. Other governmental services? 0 0 III Comments: The applicant will be required to make improvements in existing water facilities and participate in water conservation efforts to ensure the adequacy of these services. Payment of school fees prior to issuance of building permits is also required to off-set school impacts. Routing forms from City staff indicate that no other public services would be significantly impacted by the proposed zone change, annexation, or residential construction. 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: YES MAYBE tm a. Use of substantial amount of fuel or energy? o o Ii!J b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources or energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? o o III Comments: The proposed rezone/prezone and annexation will not effect energy services. An incremental increase in the demand for electricity would result from the addition of one new residence, however, this increase would be slight, and is deemed to be less than significant. 16. Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact the City's Threshold/ Standards Policies? YES MAYBE tm o o II Comments: With compliance to all requirements of the Sweetwater Authority and the City Engineering Division, the proposed residential construction will be in conformance with City Threshold Standards since it would not impact or require a substantial increase in public services. 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: YES MAYBE tm a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? 0 0 iii Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 0 0 I!'I b. Comments: The proposed project would not have an adverse impact on human health since the only health impact identified in the Initial Study was noise, and this was deemed to be temporary and thus 20 ;..~'f less than significant. 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? ~ MAYBE tm o o III Comments: The site is currently in a natural state, and consists of a sloping, north-facing hillside. The proposed project would construct a 6,295 square foot, two-story house on the site. However, the surrounding dwellings are also built into slopes, and their viewsheds are toward the north and/or east overlooking the nearby canyon. Their viewsheds would not be impacted by the proposed project. In addition, the project abuts a open space easement which contains a greater amount and variety of vegetation than exists on the site itself, and this area is expected to remain in its natural state. Therefore, aesthetic impacts are deemed to be less than significant. 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? YES MAYBE tm o o ~ Comments: The proposed development is on a slope which is not likely to be suitable for siting recreational facilities. The project would not effect existing recreational facilities. 20. Cultural Resources. YES MAYBE tm a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? 0 0 KI b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? 0 0 III c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? 0 0 Ii'] d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 0 0 III Comments: The area is designated in EIR 88-2 as an area with low potential for archeological resources. 21 ~.~S In addition, the construction of one residence is of such limited scale and scope that it would not result in the destruction of significant amounts of cultural or historic resources. 22 ~.;:,~ ADDENDUM TO NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-93-15 Chia Chen And Chuang Chu Residence PROJECT NAME: Chia Chen and Chuang Chu Residence PROJECT LOCATION: 4045 Palm Drive . PROJECT APPLICANT: Chia Chen Chu PROJECT AGENT: Albert T. Salyi CASE NO.: IS-93-15A I. INTRODUCTION The environmental review procedures of the City of Chula Vista allow the Environmental Review Coordinator (ERC) to prepare an addendum to a Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report, if one of the following conditions is present: 1. The minor changes in the project design which have occurred since completion of the Final EIR or Negative Declaration have not created any new significant environmental impacts not previously addressed in the Final EIR or Negative Declaration; 2. Additional or refined information available since completion of the Final EIR or Negative Declaration regarding the potential environmental impact of the project, or regarding the measures or alternatives available to mitigate potential environmental effects of the project, does not show that the project will have one or more significant impacts which were not previously addressed in the Final EIR or Negative Declaration. This addendum has been prepared in order to provide additional information and analysis concerning visual impacts. As a result of this analysis, the basic conclusions of the Negative Declaration have not changed. Visual impacts are found to be less than significant for the proposed project. Therefore, in accordance with Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City has prepared the following addendum to the Negative Declaration for the Chia Chen and Chuang Chu Residence IS-93- 15. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project involves the construction of a 6,295 square foot, 32-foot 7-inch high single family home. The two-story house will have eight bedrooms and 5 parking spaces. Associated discretionary approvals required include a prezoning to the City's Residential Estate (RE) zone, and annexation to Chula Vista. ~.3? Further review of the project indicated that the project also requires a conditional use permit pursuant to Section 19.22.060 to allow a building height greater than 28 feet. III. PROJECT SETTING The site is a 1.05 acre sloping, north-facing hillside of nearly 2 to 1 slope. The elevation change from one end of the lot to the other is approximately 100 feet. The site is vacant and covered with native brush and grasses, although plants associated with residential landscaping, such as ice plant, are encroaching onto the site. An abandoned car is located on the northwest comer of the site. To the south, single-family homes line the top of the slope. East of the site is a vacant, shrub- covered slope. One single-family dwelling is located to the west, and to the north a vacant, flat drainage plain occurs. A natural, vegetated open space easement exists to the east. An Sweetwater Authority easement designed for installation of a water main transects the open space area to the southwest of the site. The easement has been severely encroached upon by non-native plants. The Environmental Review coordinator has determined that the easement contains no sensitive resources. IV. IDENTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS A. Visual Impacts Section 19.22.060 of the City's Residential Estate (RE) zoning regulations permits the proposed building height of 32'7", which is 4'7" over the 28 feet typically allowed in the RE zone, with approval of a conditional use permit. Due to the slope of the site and the distance between surrounding residences and the proposed building, this increase in height will not be readily noticable. The structure and height of the building is generally consistent with other estate homes in the area. In addition, the increased height will not block the viewshed of any adjacent residences. Thus, visual impacts are found to be less than significant. V. CONCLUSION Visual impacts are found to be less than significant for the proposed project due to the topography of the site and the distance of separation between the proposed structure and the surrounding residential uses. Pursuant to Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines and based upon the above discussion, I hereby find that the project revisions to the proposed project will result in only minor technical changes or additions which are necessary to make the Negative Declaration adequate under CEQA. )11c..?t l~ dAA.AL c.. }7u'U__L~ ENVIRON ENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR .:) .0.8 REFERENCES IS-93-15 Chia Chen and Chuan Chu Residence, January 4, 1993 General Plan, City of Chula Vista Chula Vista Municipal Code City of Chula Vista Environmental Review Procedures '-<'~r RESOLUTION NO. PCZ-93-F RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF THE MITIGATED NEGA TIVE DECLARATION AND ADDENDUM ON IS-93-15, AND ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE PREZONING 1.05 ACRES TO THE "RE" RESIDENTIAL ESTATE ZONE. WHEREAS, on December 9, 1992 an application was submitted by Chia Chen and Chuang Chu to prezone to RE 1.05 acres at 4045 Palm Drive; and, WHEREAS, the subject prezoning is requested in conjunction with the proposed construction of a single family residence on the site which is currently in the unincorporated County; and, WHEREAS, due to the site's physical conditions which are adverse for a septic system, construction of that residence requires the provision of sewer service from the City of Chula Vista; and, WHEREAS, pursuant the City's Sewer Policy 570-02, extension of said sewer service requires annexation where such is feasible, as in this instance; and, WHEREAS, the proposed prezoning is required by LAFCO in conjunction with the annexation of the property to the City; and, WHEREAS, the proposed prezoning will not result in any significant environmental impacts and the Environmental Review Coordinator has issued a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum under IS-93-15; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said prezoning application, and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, and by mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property, at least ten days prior to the hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission held the hearing at the time and place advertised, namely 7:00 p.m., April 21, 1993, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue to consider the proposed prezoning and consider all evidence and testimony presented, and the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum under IS-93-15; and, NOW THEREFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA hereby: 1. Adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum under IS-93-15 which was prepared in accordance with the provisions of CEQA, the guidelines promulgated thereunder, and the City of Chula Vista Environmental Review Procedures. AJ.30 2. Recommends that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum prepared under IS-93-15. 3. Finds that the proposed prezoning is consistent with the City General Plan and that the public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice support the prezoning to the Residential Estate (RE) zone, and recommends that the City Council so find and introduce for first reading the attached Draft City Council Ordinance. 4. That a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the owners of the property and the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 21st day of April 1993 by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: Susan Fuller, Chainnan ATTEST: Nancy Ripley, Secretary (F: \homc\p lanning \pcz93 fpc. rso) ~. ?>I ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PREZONING 1.05 ACRES LOCATED AT 4045 PALM DRIVE TO THE RESIDENTIAL ESTATE ("RE") ZONE, AND MAKING NECESSARY FINDINGS. WHEREAS, the subject property located at 4045 Palm Drive and consisting of approximately 1.05 acres ("Property") is currently within the County of San Diego and proposed for annexation to Chula Vista; and, WHEREAS, the subject prezoning is requested in conjunction with the proposed construction of a single family residence on said property; and, WHEREAS, due to conditions on the property adverse to a septic system, construction of that residence requires the provision of sewer service from the City of Chula Vista; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to City Sewer Policy 570-02 the extension of sewer service requires annexation where such is feasible, as in this instance; and, WHEREAS, the property is currently owned by Chia Chen and Chuang Chu, who have consented to the annexation of the property to the City of Chula Vista; and, WHEREAS, a duly verified application for prezoning was filed with the Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista on December 9, 1992; and, WHEREAS, the prezoning of said property is required by the Local Agency Formation Commission prior to the annexation of the property to the City; and, WHEREAS, it has been determined that the proposed prezoning will not have a substantial negative effect on the environment, and the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has issued a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum under IS-93-15; and, WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission was held on April 21, 1993, and from the facts presented the Planning Commission has determined that the prezoning is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan, and that public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice support the prezoning to RE; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by a vote of _ to _ recommended the City Council approve this application. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find, determine, and ordain as follows: SECTION I. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum under IS-93-15 which was prepared in accordance with the provisions of CEQA, the guidelines promulgated thereunder, ~.3Gi Ordinance No. Page 2 and the City of Chula Vista Environmental Review Procedures, is hereby adopted. SECTION II. That the proposed prezoning is consistent with the City General Plan, and that public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice support the prezoning to City's Residential Estate ("RE") zone. SECTION III. That the zoning map or maps established by Section 19.18.010 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code are hereby amended to prezone the property Residential Estate, to wit: RE, as reflected on Exhibit B attached hereto and made a part hereof (exhibit A omitted), to become effective only upon annexation of the property to the City of Chula Vista. Presented by Approved as to form by Robert A. Leiter Director of Planning Bruce M. Boogaard City Attorney ..;l.~~ Ordinance No. Page 3 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City ofChula Vista, California, this 11th day of May, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: Tim Nader, Mayor ATTEST: Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss. CITY OF CHULA VISTA) I, Beverly A. Authlet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. had its first reading on May 11, 1993, and its second reading and adoption at a regular meeting of said City Council held on May 18, 1993. Executed this 18th day of May, 1993. Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk (F: \home\planning \pcz93 fec. ord) ~.3'f j , I~ ,. . NORTH : c... No. Acreege: Scale: ItCZ-.3-F 1.05 1. 200' 4/13/'~ C.J.F. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS ZONING MAP WAS APPROVED AS A PART OF ORDINANCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON iDete: Dreun IV: Checked By: City Clrt< o.t. ZONING MAP - ~. .35 EXHIBIT "B" , , 3. 4. 5. x THE CI7Y OF CllULA ~1STA PAR7Y DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Statement of disclosure of certain ownership interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on all matters which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other official bodies. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the contract, I.e., contractor, subcontractor, material supplier. t':I:IIA - rNcllf Clh/ t'HURNq l/+L r 1 If any person jdentified pursuant to (I) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. If any person identified pursuant to (l) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months'! Yes No _ If yes, please indicate person(s): Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants or independent contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter. 1>. Have you and/or your officers or agents. in the aggregate. contrihuted more than :ii1.OOO to ;1 Councillllember in the current or preceding election period'! Yes _ No ~ If yes. stat<; which Councilll1ember(s): ~ is defineu as: "Any illdi~'idll(l/, linn, co.pm'(l1crsJlljJ, juifll \'('I1IUJ'C, association, Joe/o/ cllth, [raler/wl orgalJ/zm/on, corpOl'/IliOJl, ('S(t/{(', IrlISr, 1'eceil'l't. syndic(/{l', this (/Jut (lny oIlier CO/f/l(\', ci(\' (/nd (OHm,)" rlry. IJ/l/l/iC1j}(lh~\', disrricI 01' (){Iler po/ilica! sif/Jdil'i,li()/J. o/' ill/Y OII,,!r group or {'omhimuio!l acring (IS II III/iI," D;lle: (:'-lUTE: Auach allllilional pages ;JS neec,,;,,)') q- / r; t)/2 .-:/ QHIIt--CHtrAL CHu ~. 3" I'rlllt ()r t\'pl' 1I:tl1lt' ()! l'Olltr;Il'!()r/;'1plit':llIt '\ '\ IJIS('I '''I 1\ II 11:\'\,.,..1 I: 111'1111